The Yokohama district court ordered the government and Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) to pay 419.6 million yen ($3.8 million) to 152 local residents, a court spokeswoman told AFP.

The verdict was the fifth time the government has been ruled liable for the disaster in eastern Japan, the world’s most serious nuclear accident since Chernobyl in 1986.

Presiding judge Ken Nakadaira said the government and TEPCO “could have avoided the accident if they had taken measures” against the tsunami that sparked the disaster, according to public broadcaster NHK.

In March last year, a court in Kyoto, western Japan, ruled both the government and TEPCO were responsible and ordered them to pay 110 million yen to 110 residents.

However, in a separate case in September 2017 in Chiba near Tokyo, the court ruled that only the operator was liable.

Around 12,000 people who fled after the disaster due to radiation fears have filed various lawsuits against the government and TEPCO.

Cases have revolved around whether the government and TEPCO, both of whom are responsible for disaster prevention measures, could have foreseen the scale of the tsunami and subsequent meltdown.

Dozens of class-action lawsuits have been filed seeking compensation from the government.

Triggered by a 9.1-magnitude earthquake, the tsunami overwhelmed reactor cooling systems, sending three into meltdown and sending radiation over a large area.

February 15, 2019 The U.S. Justice Department is accusing Lockheed Martin Corp. of using false records and making false statements to bill the Energy Department for tens of millions of dollars in unauthorized profits and fees at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington.

The federal civil lawsuit was filed last week in U.S. District Court in Eastern Washington.

The Seattle Times says the lawsuit also accuses Lockheed Martin of using federal money to pay millions of dollars in kickbacks.

Hanford is located near Richland, Washington, and for decades made plutonium for nuclear weapons. The site is now involved in a massive cleanup effort that costs more than $2 billion per year.

The lawsuit covers the period from 2010 to 2015.

Lockheed Martin denied the allegations and said it will defend itself vigorously.

“……….power generation from nuclear reactors pose a more substantial threat of causing major mishaps and accidents which could potentially damage property, cause personal injury, and damage the environment on a magnanimous scale. The potential underlying risk has thrown a significantly challenging question before the political heads of the world – who will be liable for the damage caused by such a nuclear incident? Several nations have addressed the concept of nuclear liability insurance and compensatory claims made by the injured parties through legally binding international conventions or/and national laws which has been analysed in great length in this paper……..

How is nuclear energy liability insurance structured?……….

While structuring insurance for nuclear reactors, the only factor which ought to be considered is the high potential perils associated with installation and operations of nuclear fission and fusion. This drastically differs from the risk associated to that of other industries of global sectors. The fundamentals of any nuclear liability insurance are:

I. Channelling of liability on the operators: The nuclear operators are liable for all damages caused by a nuclear incident notwithstanding fault liability.

II. Trans-border nationality: A nuclear energy disaster affects not only the country in which it is located but the surrounding states as well. Hence, national laws are augmented with international conventions which are needed to defend the cross-border inflictions of such disasters.

III. Limited liability: Limited civil liability concept has been incorporated by the international conventions on the basis which the national laws have been formulated, putting a maximum cap limit on the nuclear operators, beyond which the state will take up the liability.

(Detailed explanation is provided in the latter part of this article)

Due to such high-risk and strict liability, the nuclear operators opt for third-party civil liability insurance which finds its root in either of the two forms:

I. National Insurance Pool:

To cover the potential liability of the nuclear industry, many insurers agreed to pool their resources for the associated high-potential risks. A pool is where a group of insurance companies jointly participate to a fixed percentage in the insurance of a particular risk or class of business. These are created in the circumstances involving risks which, in practicality, cannot be provided by any individual insurer on a stand-alone basis. In most countries, national insurance pools have been formed based on the requirements laid down by the federal laws (based on international conventions), pooling together insurance for the domestic nuclear operators.II. Mutual Insurance Associations: The USA (the Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited) and Europe (the European Mutual Insurance for Nuclear Installations) have insurance associations which deal with the physical damage and liability in the event of a nuclear accident which is set up by the nuclear industry itself.

Principles or fundamentals governing Nuclear Liability Insurance:

In recognition of this exposure caused by nuclear accidents, the international conventions and nuclear liability insurance were formulated in the light of the seven fundamental principles:

I. Strict Liability:

The operator is directly and strictly liable for the damage caused by the nuclear incident. The aggrieved need not prove that the operator was negligent or at fault. Only the link between the damage caused and the nuclear incident needs to be demonstrated. The operator is liable for any damage resulting from a nuclear event at his installation, in principle irrespective of its cause.

II. Channelling liability to the operator (Exclusive liability):

All liability arising from the damage caused by a nuclear accident is channelled to the operator, thereby protecting the rights of the public. The operator is exclusively liable for damage resulting from a nuclear incident. He is held liable to the exclusion of any other person, regardless of who caused the damage. Hence, the damage is charged to the operator himself and not the suppliers. The channeling of liability might seem unfair as it means that the operator could be liable even if a third party were negligent or at fault. The victim of a nuclear incident can only present his claim to the operator of the installation causing damage or his insurer. Furthermore, such exclusive liability brings certainty in insurance claims as the compensation settlements would be quick, and avoids costly and time-consuming claim procedures. Had the situation been otherwise, then insurers would have to hold separate pools or covers for every party involved in the nuclear reactor chain.

III. Limitation of liability in Time:

This is an important concept because the injury caused by a nuclear incident may not manifest for several years. Ergo, a limitation period is intended to help the claimant where the consequences may not reveal for several years; thereby not divulging them of their right to seek damage, and at the same time it protects the rights of the operators and insurers by not exposing them of liability for an indefinite period. For example, in the UK, the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 states that any claim made after 10 years (from the date of occurrence of the nuclear incident) but less than 30 years, will be made directly to the government instead of the insurer or the operator.

IV. Limitation of Liability in Time:

The amount of liability charged to an operator under the principle of strict and exclusive liability is capped to a limit to shelter them from the full risk amount. This concept is introduced to bring a balance or quid pro quo status against the strict and exclusive liability. Beyond the limit, the state covers the liability amount.

V. Insurance or other _nancial security:

Operators are obligated to carry financial security to cover their potential liability amount in the event of a nuclear incident. Usually, insurance pools tend to third-party claims. However, in certain situations, operators take the liability on themselves and cover the same by providing financial security in the form of government guarantees, bank guarantees, letters of credit, mutual fund, operators’ pooling etc.

VI. Jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction over claim actions lies exclusively with the courts of the country where the nuclear incident occurred. The courts of other contracting states will not be competent to hear the claims. Judgements made by the competent court will be recognized and enforced in other contracting countries. This principle is only useful when many states have ratified either the same convention or a bridging convention. Victims may, on first impressions, see it as an advantage to be entitled to sue all possible parties in different courts for nuclear damage. However, it is pertinent in the victims’ best interest to disburse compensation equitably.

VII. Applicable Law:

The applicable law is the national law of the competent court that has jurisdiction. The federal law must also be applied without discrimination on the grounds of nationality, domicile and residence. The applicable law principle helps prevent costly and lengthy arguments about which law applies, especially with regard to the complexities of the national and international rules surrounding the conflict of laws.

International Conventions:

A nuclear accident causing trans-boundary damage has led to the development of international conventions to ensure that victims have a readily available justice system.

I. Paris Convention:

The nuclear industries liability regime was founded in 1960 by the OECD’s Paris Convention. Which requires national legislation to be passed for it to be ratified. Although this convention recognizes strict and exclusive channeling of liability, it specifies certain exceptions, which rebuff the liability of the operator. Following are the exceptions: ………… http://www.mondaq.com/x/781188/Insurance/Global+Nuclear+Liability+Insurance+and+Claims

The Tennessee Valley Authority says it cannot complete the sale of its Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant to developer Franklin L. Haney because Haney doesn’t have a license yet to operate the unfinished twin-reactor plant in Alabama.

In a 25-page legal brief filed in federal court Monday, TVA attorneys contend that any sale to Haney would be illegal under the Atomic Energy Act since Haney is trying to acquire and eventually operate the nuclear plant without a properly approved permit.

Haney’s company, Nuclear Development LLC , was the top bidder for Bellefonte at a TVA auction of the abandoned plant in November 2016. But Nuclear Development only filed a license transfer application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to take over TVA’s construction permit on the Bellefonte plant on Nov. 13, 2018 — two weeks after the sale was originally supposed to close and only 17 days before an extended deadline for the sale on Nov. 30.

TVA told Haney the day before the Nov. 30 sale was supposed to be completed that it could not sell Bellefonte as a nuclear plant without approval of the license transfer by the NRC. In the sales agreement with Haney, TVA said “federal law at all times govern the validity, interpretation and enforceability” of the sale………..

The legal fight over whether TVA must now sell the Bellefonte plant to Haney is moving in some uncharted waters since the NRC has not previously transferred a deferred construction permit on a nuclear plant to a private individual or a company that has not previously operated a nuclear plant. NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said last month that the NRC staff is still reviewing Haney’s application to take over the deferred construction permit.

Although no active construction has occurred at Bellefonte in nearly a decade, TVA has maintained the plant in deferred status…………

Aided by more than $2 billion in production tax credits for new nuclear generation allocated for Bellefonte and the prospect of $5 billion or more in federal loan guarantees for the project, Haney claims he should be able to finish the reactors at a cost allowing him to deliver power as much as $500 million a year cheaper for electricity users.

But Haney, a former Chattanooga real estate developer who now lives in south Florida, has no previous experience owning or operating a nuclear plant. Haney has amassed a fortune over the past four decades buying, developing and leasing properties to TVA, the Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies and airports, along with hotels, office buildings and other developments.

Haney said he is assembling a team of top engineering, design and construction firms with experience in the nuclear power industry to finish building Bellefonte.

Bloomberg, By Edvard Pettersson, February 6, 2019, Boeing Co. was accused of negligence tied to a wildfire that tore through Malibu, California, in November and that purportedly started on the grounds of the nearby, disused Rocketdyne testing site.

A group of homeowners sued Boeing along with Edison International, the parent of the utility they say was at fault in igniting the fire, on Tuesday in Los Angeles. They claim Boeing failed to properly manage the vegetation on the Santa Susana Field Laboratory and allowed the fire to spread to surrounding neighborhoods.

The Woolsey fire killed 3, burned about 100,000 acres and destroyed 1,500 structures in and around Malibu. Southern California Edison has said an electrical substation on the Boeing property suffered an outage two minutes before the fire was first reported.

The legal challenge means that regulators on the state’s Public Service Commission will have to formally reconsider their decision, which would leave SCE&G customers to pay $2.3 billion over the next two decades for a pair of abandoned nuclear reactors.

The process was set in motion Monday by Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, a pair of environmental groups that faced off against SCE&G throughout the decade-long nuclear project. They filed their protest with the commission — the same regulators who made the decision.

The environmental groups say the PSC should have officially made a determination about whether SCE&G handled the nuclear project appropriately. Attorneys opposing the power company argued SCE&G failed to tell regulators about studies that questioned the project’s viability.

The PSC chided SCE&G this month, saying it had damaged the public’s trust. But regulators stopped short of formally saying they had been misled

The environmental groups went further. They argued Monday that “SCE&G fraudulently lied, misled and withheld material information” about the problems that sank its $9 billion plan to build a pair of reactors at V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, north of Columbia.

SCE&G and Dominion, a Virginia-based utility giant that has offered to buy it, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment Monday.

December 18, 2018 (Mainichi Japan) TOKYO — The Supreme Court on Dec. 13 upheld the lower court ruling ordering Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) to pay about 16 million yen in compensation to a man in his 40s and his family that voluntarily evacuated Fukushima Prefecture to western Japan after the 2011 nuclear disaster.

The top court’s First Petty Bench confirmed an Osaka High Court ruling handed down in October 2017 that recognized the man had developed depression due to the disaster and became unable to work. It marked the first time that a ruling awarding compensation to voluntary evacuees from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station disaster has been finalized by the top court, according to a legal team for victims of the nuclear crisis. ….. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181218/p2a/00m/0na/021000c

Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan says he advised former President Jacob Zuma that nuclear procurement would be a complex issue. Clement Manyathela 20 Nov 18 JOHANNESBURG – Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan has told the state capture commission that former President Jacob Zuma was determined to go ahead with the nuclear build programme despite the reality that the country could not afford it. Gordhan appeared before the inquiry on Monday in Parktown.

His interactions with the Gupta family are among other issues he is expected to deal with.

The minister says he advised Zuma that nuclear procurement would be a complex issue.

“I indicated to the former president that it would be lawful to follow procurement processes for such an expensive process to avoid being marred in scandals such as the arms deal.”

He says he wanted Zuma to be aware of the cost implications.

“I wanted to impress upon the former president that that undertaking, the nuclear procurement, required careful consideration of its costs, choice of supplier and due process.”

Last month, former Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene told the commission Zuma was so determined to proceed with the nuclear build programme that he showed disregard and no appreciation for the financial ramifications for the country.

In fight over power bills, SCE&G seeks to disparage ex-employees, $1 million nuclear report, Greenville News, Avery G. Wilks, The State Nov. 19, 2018 COLUMBIA— When the S.C. Public Service Commission rules on SCE&G’s electric rates next month, the Cayce-based utility doesn’t want those regulators to put too much stock into scathing testimony by two of its former employees.

Nor does SCE&G want the commission to weigh heavily a nuclear contractor’s late 2015 assessment that concluded SCE&G’s $9 billion nuclear construction project was foundering and way behind schedule.

Fighting allegations of fraud and mismanagement in this month’s PSC hearing into the failed V.C. Summer Nuclear Station expansion project, SCE&G has sought to disparage its former employees and a high-powered construction company that it paid $1 million.

It is a key part of SCE&G’s defense as the state’s utility watchdog, environmentalists and consumer groups cite those witnesses to bolster their arguments that the utility’s power bills – which rose by about $27 a month to bankroll the failing project – should be slashed.

That strategy likely will be on display again Tuesday when former utility executive Carlette Walker, vice president of nuclear finance administration for SCE&G’s parent company SCANA, and retired SCE&G engineer Ken Browne testify before the commission for the first time in this case.

Impeach your own people’

Walker and Browne are star witnesses for the S.C. Office of Regulatory Staff, the state’s utility watchdog.

In sworn statements filed with the PSC, both have said SCE&G executives misled the commission in 2015 by testifying the project would cost $698 million more to complete – a number supplied by the project’s lead contractor, Westinghouse.

That number was unrealistically low and based on a productivity rate that never had been achieved at the Fairfield County construction site, Walker and Browne say. A team of SCE&G accountants and engineers worked for weeks to estimate the project actually would cost an additional $1.2 billion to finish — $500 million more than Westinghouse had said.

“Let me be blunt: You have a utility that bet the farm and lost,” Scott Rubin, an independent utility consultant and attorney from Pennsylvania, testified Monday on behalf of AARP South Carolina. “By the end of this year, customers will have paid $2.2 billion for absolutely nothing — not a single watt of electricity.”

Rubin’s testimony came on the eighth day of PSC hearings into the failed effort by SCE&G, a SCANA subsidiary, to build two nuclear reactors in Fairfield County. The commission also is considering SCE&G’s future electric rates and a proposal by Richmond-based Dominion Energy to buy its parent, Cayce-based SCANA.

Independent 4th Nov 2018 , The Supreme Court has refused to halt a novel lawsuit filed by young
Americans that attempts to force the federal government to take action on
climate change, turning down a request from the Trump administration to
stop it before trial.

France to defend itself against nuclear tests complaint, France says it will defend itself against allegations of crimes against humanity for its nuclear weapons tests in the South Pacific. The overseas minister, Annick Girardin, made the comment in the senate two days after French Polynesian opposition politician Oscar Temaru told a UN meeting in New York that a complaint had been lodged in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The United States on Thursday indicted seven Russian intelligence officers for conspiring to hack computers and steal data, including attempts to break into the computer networks of the nuclear power company Westinghouse Electric Co. France 24 4 Oct 18The Justice Department said one of the Russian officers performed online reconnaissance and stole log-in credentials of Westinghouse workers, including staff that work at its advanced nuclear reactordevelopment and new reactor technology units.

Westinghouse, which is located outside of Pittsburgh, provides fuel, services and plant design to customers, including Ukraine.

Three of the seven Russian military officers indicted on Thursday were charged in a separate case brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office for their role in hacking activities designed to influence the 2016 presidential election……..

In the indictment, prosecutors alleged that one of the Russian officers, Ivan Sergeyevich Yermakov, performed “technical reconnaissance” of the company as early as Nov. 20, 2014, and got access to IP addresses, domains and network ports. The hackers also researched Westinghouse to learn about the company’s employees and their backgrounds in nuclear energy research.

In December, the Justice Department said, Yermakov and his co-conspirators registered a fake domain and website designed to mimic the company’s website and sent phishing emails to at least five employees. Once people clicked on the spoofed domain and provided their log-ins, they were rerouted to the original network.

On other occasions, according to the indictment, the conspirators also sent spearphishing emails to the personal emails of employees at Westinghouse. Two account users clicked on the malicious links.

The indictment does not clearly explain why Westinghouse was targeted or whether the hackers succeeded, and Justice Department officials declined to comment beyond the indictment.

A Japanese court paved the way for the nation’s ninth nuclear reactor to restart, boosting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s push to bring dozens of plants back online following the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

The Hiroshima High Court on Tuesday removed a temporary injunction against Shikoku Electric Power Co.’s Ikata No. 3 reactor, the company said in a statement. While the injunction ordered in December would end this month — meaning the utility could have restart the plant from Oct. 1 — the ruling is a symbolic victory for the government, which has often seen the courts stymie efforts to accelerate nuclear restarts.

Policy makers are seeking to restore the nation’s nuclear industry amid efforts to reduce reliance on costly fossil-fuel imports and cut carbon emissions. The battle in Japan over nuclear power has moved mostly to the courts, which have been used by groups opposed to the technology to keep plants shut. Seven of the nation’s 39 operable nuclear units are currently online, while one is under planned maintenance.

…….. There are roughly three dozen lawsuits pending against Japan’s nuclear facilities and the decision in favor of the utility may have some influence on future rulings, according to Datsugenpatsu Bengodan, a group of lawyers who oppose nuclear power. A nationwide survey by Mainichi Newspaper in February show the restart of nuclear reactors was opposed by almost half of the respondents, while about a third of them approved.

Colorado wildlife refuge at old nuclear plant is open – for now, Euro News, By Reuters• last 25/09/2018 By Keith Coffman, ROCKY FLATS, Colo. (Reuters) – “….Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge since it opened on Sept 15.

Five environmental and community activist groups have sued the government, arguing the Rocky Flats refuge should be closed until more testing is done. A judge last month rejected their request to delay the opening while the lawsuit is heard.

The suit is pending in Denver federal court.

The Rocky Flats plutonium plant had a history of fires, and radioactive spills during its 37 years in operation before shutting down permanently in 1989 during a criminal investigation into environmental violations.

Now that it’s a refuge, its 10.2 miles (16.4 km) of trails are open to naturalists, hikers, cyclists and equestrians. About 1,300 acres (526 hectares) immediately surrounding the old production facility is permanently closed off to the public……

REMNANT PLUTONIUM

In the lawsuit, pending before U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer, opponents of the refuge argue that a $7.7 billion Superfund cleanup overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency was flawed and a new environmental study should be conducted.

“Our case will clearly demonstrate that the government does not have an up-to-date assessment of risks to the environment and human health from allowing unlimited public visits to the refuge,” Randall Weiner, an attorney for the coalition, told Reuters.

Human activity could stir up remnant plutonium, which if ingested by refuge visitors or residents downwind can cause cancer, Weiner said………

Rocky Flat’s demise began in 1989, when FBI agents and EPA investigators raided the plant based on a whistleblower’s tip that contractors were illegally disposing of hazardous materials.

The contractor at the time, Rockwell International Corp., pleaded guilty to violating environmental laws and paid $18.5 million in fines. In 2015, Rockwell and the plant’s previous contractor, Dow Chemical Co., paid $375 million to 12,000 homeowners downwind from the plant after a federal jury found the companies were liable for devaluing their properties due to plutonium releases.

1.This Month

This page has a very useful “SEARCH” function. If you scroll down the right side panel you can use either the categories listed, or the “Search” slot. Type in a name or a place or topic on this slot, and it’s easy to find a related post.

Changing climate change“2040” paints an optimistic picture of the future of the environment

The film focuses on technological and agricultural solutions that are already being implemented to help combat climate change, The Economist Feb 19th 2019

by C.G. | BERLIN ……….In “2040”, a documentary which premiered at the Berlinale, Mr Gameau seeks to wrest hope from the bleak reports of climate change. He was inspired by Project Drawdown, the first comprehensive plan to reverse global warming, and the film is intended as a “virtual letter to his four-year-old daughter to show her an alternative future”. “Many films,” Mr Gameau thinks, are too dystopian, and “paint a future that is really hard to engage and to connect with”. “2040” acknowledges that the Earth has set off down a hazardous path, but focuses on the work that is being done now to steer the right course. What, the film asks, could make 2040 a time worth living in?…. (subscribers only) https://www.economist.com/prospero/2019/02/19/2040-paints-an-optimistic-picture-of-the-future-of-the-environment